Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court hears 4 cases in Greenfield

GREENFIELD -- Did a former state trooper, convicted of sex crimes after exposing himself to a woman he met online, receive a fair trial?

To what extent can facts presented in a child protection hearing be used in a criminal case against the child's mother?

Should a Franklin County man be allowed to withdraw a guilty plea because his lawyer failed to inform him of the possibility of sex offender registration?

If a man consents to a police search of his car, does that mean police can search under the hood?

The six justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court traveled to Greenfield Tuesday to consider these questions, hearing oral arguments in four cases that originated in the western part of the state. An upstairs courtroom at the brand-new Franklin County Justice Center was filled to capacity, and video of the proceedings was being shown in an overflow room.

The event, organized by the Franklin County Bar Association, gave local residents a rare opportunity to watch legal proceedings before the state's highest court. The last time the SJC came to Franklin County was in 1998, said Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan.

Appearing in Greenfield for the sitting were Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants and Justices Kimberly S. Budd, Frank M. Gaziano, David A. Lowy, Elspeth B. Cypher and Scott L. Kafker. The six listened as local prosecutors and defense attorneys argued cases on appeal. The judges will take the matters under advisement and issue rulings at a later date.

Attorneys from around the region packed the room to hear arguments in the case of Commonwealth v. Christopher Kennedy.

Kennedy, a former Massachusetts State Police officer, last year was convicted in Hampshire Superior Court of indecent exposure, assault and battery, and indecent assault and battery. The charges stemmed from an incident where Kennedy exposed himself to a woman he met through an online dating site.

According to a summary of the case and previous courtroom testimony, the two exchanged sexually explicit text messages before they met for coffee. He invited himself to the woman's house in Worthington, and she agreed. When he arrived, armed and in uniform, he unzipped his pants and the alleged victim said, "No." He then placed her hand on his penis, and the alleged victim again told the defendant to stop. She told him to leave, which he did.

Greenfield attorney Merritt Schnipper argued that Kennedy did not get a fair trial because the jury was not instructed to consider whether Kennedy could have been "reasonably mistaken" about the victim's wishes, and about whether she would find the incident "offensive."

Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Von Flattern argued that there could have been no mistake. She said Kennedy's action's "were like slow motion" to the victim, and that "she keeps saying no, and he keeps pulling it out."

Gants and other justices asked a number of questions about the concept of consent, and about the defendant's "mistake of fact" defense.

The second case involved whether records from a child protection hearing should be released to parties in a related criminal case. The child's parents face charges involving serious injuries to the child. The father has been charged with attempted murder. The names in the cases have not been released.

A child protection hearing was held in Hampshire-Franklin Juvenile Court, and the records were sealed. The juvenile court judge subsequently ruled that the father and prosecutors may obtain the sealed records. Lawyers for the mother and for the child want the records to remain under wraps, and asked the court to review the standard that it uses for such determinations.

Assistant District Attorney Steven Greenbaum argued on behalf of the commonwealth, and lawyers Jeanne M. Kaiser, Mark Bluvier, and Scott Chapman argued respectively for the mother, father and child.

A third case involved a Montague man who in 2014 pleaded guilty to three counts of indecent assault and battery. In 2015, he moved to withdraw his plea, saying his lawyer never told him he would have to register as a sex offender. A lower court judge denied the motion, saying that even if he had been informed, it wouldn't have "materially affected his decision to plead guilty."

The defendant appealed, noting major changes to sex offender case law in recent years, and arguing that the judge should have held a hearing on the evidence.

The fourth case had to do with the admissibility of evidence found in a police search.

In Commonwealth v. Anthony C. Ortiz, Holyoke police stopped a car for "excessively loud music." Neither Ortiz nor his passengers had a diver's license. Police asked Ortiz "if there was anything in the vehicle the police should know about," and Ortiz replied, "No, you can check."

After police ordered the men out of the car and placed them in handcuffs, one of the officers raised the hood and found a bag "in the air filter" that contained two guns.

A lower court judge suppressed the evidence, ruling that although consent was freely given, it could only be understood to extend to the interior of the vehicle and not the hood. Prosecutors appealed. The high court agreed to address the issue of the "scope of the consent."

The SJC normally meets at the John Adams Courthouse in Boston. The justices hear appeals on a broad range of criminal and civil matters from September through May. The full bench renders around 200 decisions a year, and single justices decide approximately 600 cases annually.